MM: CSD Asked To Pay Into Tree Bank, Sheep and Puppies, and MARTA’s Archives
Decatur Metro | July 17, 2015 | 9:26 am
- City Schools of Decatur asked to pay $120,000 under city’s tree ordinance [Decaturish]
- Sheep AND puppies in the Decatur cemetery?? [Decatur Minute]
- Decatur Mayor Baskett: It’s time for ‘more fishing’ [AJC]
- Decatur schools put a contact on more land [AJC]
- Revival’s signage goes up [FB]
- Decatur Third Friday Bike Ride This Friday [Be Active Decatur]
- Behold! MARTA’s archives! Now online! [CL]
Photo courtesy of Revival’s Facebook page
Is there supposed to be a link to a Revival article here? Or just the photo?
Good point, I generally need a link for a pic. I put up a more explicit link to their FB page.
And in this edition of “progressive government cannibalizes itself . . ” Or as Dr. Edwards said,
“We are a public school system who funds education with public tax dollars, so if we have to pay into this tree bank, we are effectively digging into the pockets of our taxpayers to have to do that, and the timing of this is concerning in light of the fact … we just heard from our seniors and community, with what they’re facing with tax assessments,” she said. “We’re going to try to lower the millage rate as much as we possibly can. But $120,000 is not something I think we had budgeted for and it ultimately hits the taxpayers. So that will have to be considered when we talk about the millage rate.”
Yet another “unforeseen” consequence of feel-good environmental regulations. Too bad Avondale is poised to follow Decatur down this path.
I think that was board member Annie Caiola who said that, not Dr. Edwards. But here’s a question: For the taxpayer, how would this be anything more than a transfer of cash from our left front pocket to our right front pocket? Both CSD and COD are taxpayer funded. One gets a credit, one gets a debit. So why the suggestion (by the Board) that we the taxpayer are gonna get hosed, if not solely for grandstanding purposes?
Because she suggested that millage rate reduction may not happen.
The millage rate reduction was going to be worth $120,000 community-wide? What a rollback.
Fair enough.
Thanks — stand corrected on the attribution.
If it is just a substance-free balance sheet adjustment, why would the City even bother asking for the money?
I would have preferred that Caiola made that argument instead, rather than the appeal to fear.
But I really am asking, because her quote suggests it is not substance-free, but an unanticipated $120k cash transaction and hit to the CSD budget. In the long run, maybe it gets ironed out in the process of taxing and spending, but maybe not. In the short to medium run, COD and CSD are legally separate entities whose finances are not intermingled, and so a six figure payment from one to the other is rather meaningful, it seems to me.
I’m not saying it’s substance free. I’m suggesting it’s a manageable expense from one publicly funded institution to another. I don’t believe it’s nearly sizable enough to lead to a CSD tax increase (or less substantive reduction) on one side; nor would I expect a tax rollback on the COD side in response. I guess that’s my point: It’s at a scale that would surely be worked through and we the taxpayer would be neither penalized nor rewarded. So I get irked when it appears the issue is being framed in the context of a scenario that’s not expected to happen.
These comments that “oh don’t worry, it doesn’t matter” (left pocket/right pocket) are far too dismissive of the problem. Perhaps, PERHAPS the two publicly funded entities can figure out a way to make the cost net to zero for CSD, but that is nothing more than an assumption at this point. In the public sector, budgets are set, allocations are made, and unexpected changes and unusual transactions are often difficult to implement. There are rules and procedures and internal controls that attempt to prevent misuse. CoD fiscal managment appears to be sound, but even IF the City administration agrees to, and even IF they figure out a way, and even IF they propose and pass it by the commissioners, it still creates extra work and a period of uncertainty about if those funds will be available. Maybe it’s not that much, but it is at least a temporary unnecessary burden on the school system resulting from an unnecessary and unwanted tree ordinance.
On the flipside, that $120K could potentially allow CoD to hire 2.5 more arborists to protect our oh-so rapidly disappearing canopy instead of CSD having 2.5 more educators in classrooms.
Who said it doesn’t matter? Or does matter? Or is or isn’t complicated? Or is or isn’t justified? Not me. I said I objected to the issue being framed as a “tree penalty = tax impact on people who are hurting.” If anything is being dismissive, it’s that. Everything else you’ve laid out are valid points, albeit ones unrelated to what I was saying.
Scott – your comments suggest that you really don’t know how the CSD and COD budgets work. In fairness, I don’t either. However, I know enough about public administration to know that these budgets are not simple balance sheets. Statute dictates that certain funds (e.g., the General Fund) can only be used for specific expenditures. And so just because CSD transfers money to one COD pot, that doesn’t mean the money will be available for transfer back to CSD. Bottom line – Annie’s statements probably reflects budget considerations that you’re not aware of. Rather than speculate, you might want to take a closer look at the details. And please do let us know what you learn.
This is getting silly. I’m not making a statement about accounting or budgets. The specifics of CSD or COD finances are immaterial to what I’m saying. My point, for anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet, is this: A $120K impact fee on CSD is not going to increase anyone’s school taxes. A $120K impact fee received by COD is not going to get anyone a tax rate reduction. It will be a standard, cost-of-doing-business transaction that will be worked out within the parameters of their respective budgets.
A few weeks back, a group of seniors presented their taxation concerns and fears to the city commission. These were people who are legitimately hurting, making for a real issue that requires real action. So, yes, when I get the sense that someone is trying to manipulate that fear to score a negotiating advantage, I take offense. It’s not about accounting at all. It’s about politics. And you don’t need to know the specifics of the transaction to know when you’re getting played.
Can’t they just say, “We don’t want to pay it because we didn’t see it coming and didn’t budget for it. What can we work out?” That I’d respect.
Because it’s an ordinance! Not even a City or school board is exempt, right? RIGHT? What other ordinances should the government be exempt from? The money has to move from the DEVELOPER (CSD) to the TREE FUND. It’s not about Peter paying Paul.
It’s not really a transfer in the sense that COD now has general operating budget funds it didn’t have before. It is an impact fee to replace the tree canopy that is lost. I would be fine if CSD could plant the required number of trees in another area if they can’t fit it on the middle and high school sites.
Agree with DEM on the “unforeseen” consequences. Seems pretty silly. Can’t the city commission just pass some sort of waiver for CSD?
But why? Should we conclude that some trees are not as equal as others?
If we’re talking about Bradford Pear trees, then yes.
And sweetgums too.
You got that right!
Totally. Even among the same genus. Look at a Water Oak against a White Oak. No question the White Oak is more beautiful and majestic. But one false grading move that guy is toast. The Water Oak can be abused almost every way to Sunday (within reason) and still live.
Maybe there could be a compromise and replacement trees could be planted on different CSD sites since there is apparently no place else left at DHS for trees–assuming that would be less than $120,000 to implement.
If I’m reading it correctly, the initial MARTA plans had the Decatur Station about where Church St. ends at the RR tracks. Most of the area south of Trinity would have been a parking lot. It would interesting to find out the backstory on why the Station was moved downtown.
Imagine how different Decatur would be with MARTA flying through on elevated track like it does from downtown Atlanta to East Lake Station.
Here is the original site plan (copy and paste) from 1968 for the Decatur station–in downtown, so maybe that original plan never got very far.
digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/marta/id/2906/rec/4
I believe that was correct.
Those puppies are adoooooooorable! I want!
I think it’s a good idea. If nothing else, it encourages the school system to act responsibly when dealing
with environmental concerns. If a department is penalized or at least held responsible for the impact it
has on the environment, maybe we will see further awareness. Money talks even in a budget.
Your comment indicates you believe CSD is being irresponsible by cutting down trees. Can you explain how CSD is supposed to expand the high school without cutting trees?
Maybe in the future CSD should consider that the cost of being overcrowded also includes needing to cut down trees, and plan accordingly
You are correct. Henceforth CSD should cut down every tree before it reaches regulated size. That way they can plan for unexpected explosions in enrollment without worries about the tree ordinance.
Or they could include it in their construction budget, the same as I would have to do if I were expanding my house.
Why did the City’s consultants not point out the cost of the tree removal, replacement and recompense costs as a part of construction planning and cost estimating? The removal of the trees was planned, foreseen and a known quantity. The A/E firm was sleeping on the job, or, as usual, ignored their landscape architect until the end. CSD needs to pay up. The tree fund allows for planting on other City property, so there is no compromise needed to plant on other property. For a sense of scale,120K will get you 150 very nice 3-4″ caliper trees.
Well if CSD needs to pay the tree fine to the city, then the city should pay CSD all the back alcohol tax money it neglected to pay them.
Sounds like the basis of a compromise. The City can deduct it from what it owes CSD in unpaid alcohol tax and CSD can agree to plant trees elsewhere.
True, but there’s a downside to getting into tit-for-tat in an environment previously characterized (at least in part) by acts of good will or mutual accommodation. For example, for years, I do believe COD has been picking up the tab on (perhaps all?) of the crossing guards that help usher kids around town — a function that typically falls on a school system’s balance sheet. So I could easily see a less-than-neighborly bean-counting negotiation without end, as each side tries to monetize past acts.
Maybe that needs to happen to satisfy our curiosity over which side is really getting the “better deal.” I don’t know. I’m just saying it’s a different dynamic and probably wouldn’t contribute much to the better working relations between CSD and COD many would prefer.